Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Profilaxis antibiótica para el parto vaginal instrumentado

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

ANODE 2019 {published data only}

ANODE CG, Knight M. Lb 3: prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of infection following operative vaginal delivery: the ANODE trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2019;220(1):S685. CENTRAL
ISRCTN11166984. ANODE: Prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of infection following operative delivery. isrctn.com/ISRCTN11166984 (date received 23 September 2015). CENTRAL
Knight M, Chiocchia V, Partlett C, Rivero‐Arias O, Hua X, Hinshaw K, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of infection after operative vaginal delivery (ANODE): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019;393(10189):2395‐403. CENTRAL
Knight M, Mottram L, Gray S, Partlett C, Juszczak E. Prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of infection following operative vaginal delivery (ANODE): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2018;19(1):395. CENTRAL

Heitmann 1989 {published data only}

Heitmann JA, Benrubi GI. Efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of endomyometritis after forceps delivery. Southern Medical Journal 1989;82:960‐2. CENTRAL

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

De Meeus 1991 {published data only}

De Meeus JB, Kibler MP, Desayes M, Toullat G, Magnin G. Antibiotic prophylaxis and at risk vaginal deliveries: randomised study of 200 deliveries [Antibioprophylaxie et accouchements a risque par voie basse: etude randomisee de 200 accouchements]. Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 1991;20:599. CENTRAL
De Meeus JB, Klibler MP, Deshayes M, Toullat G, Magnin G. Randomized study of 200 vaginal deliveries at risk of infection: relevance of antibiotic prophylaxis [Etude randomisee de 200 accouchements par voie basse a risque infectieux: interet de I'antibioprophylaxie]. Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 1991;20:454. CENTRAL

ACOG 2015

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 154: Operative vaginal delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2015;126(5):e56‐e65.

ACOG 2018

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 199: Use of prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2018;132(3):e103‐e119. [PUBMED 30134425]

Acosta 2014

Acosta CD, Kurinczuk JJ, Lucas DN, Tuffnell DJ, Sellers S, Knight M, for the United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System. Severe maternal sepsis in the UK, 2011‐2012: a national case‐control study. PLOS Medicine 2014;11(7):e1001672.

Angioli 2000

Angioli R, Gomes‐Marin O, Cantuaria G, O'Sullivan MJ. Severe perineal lacerations during vaginal delivery: the University of Miami experience. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;182:1083‐5.

Boucoiran 2010

Boucoiran I, Valerio L, Bafghi A, Delotte J, Bongain A. Spatula‐assisted deliveries: a large cohort of 1065 cases. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 2010;151(1):46‐51.

Buppasiri 2014

Buppasiri P, Lumbiganon P, Thinkhamrop J, Thinkhamrop B. Antibiotic prophylaxis for third‐ and fourth‐degree perineal tear during vaginal birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005125.pub4]

Cammu 2011

Cammu H, Martens G, Keirse MJ. Mothers' level of education and childbirth interventions: a population‐based study in Flanders, Northern Belgium. Birth 2011;38(3):191‐9.

Chaim 2000

Chaim W, Bashiri A, Bar‐David J, Shoham‐Vardi I, Mazor M. Prevalence and clinical significance of postpartum endometritis and wound infection. Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;8:77‐82.

Chang 1992

Chang PL, Newton ER. Predictors of antibiotic prophylactic failure in post‐cesarean endometritis. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1992;80(1):117‐22.

Criscuolo 1990

Criscuolo JL, Kibler MP, Micholet S, Magnin G, Ducroz B, Toullat G, et al. The value of antibiotic prophylaxis during intrauterine procedures during vaginal delivery. A comparative study of 500 patients. Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 1990;19:909‐18.

Dancer 2004

Dancer SJ. How antibiotics can make us sick: the less obvious adverse effects of antimicrobial chemotherapy. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2004;6:611‐9.

Dare 1998

Dare FO, Bako AU, Ezechi OC. Puerperal sepsis: a preventable post‐partum complication. Tropical Doctor 1998;28:92‐5.

Dudley 2017

Dudley L, Kettle C, Thomas PW, Ismail KM. Perineal resuturing versus expectant management following vaginal delivery complicated by a dehisced wound (PREVIEW): a pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017;7(2):e012766.

Duggal 2008

Duggal N, Mercado C, Daniels K, Bujor A, Caughey AB, El‐Sayed YY. Antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of postpartum perineal wound complications: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;111(6):1268‐73.

Eschenbach 1986

Eschenbach DA, Rosene K, Tompkins LS, Watkins H, Gravett MG. Endometrial cultures obtained by a triple‐lumen method from afebrile and febrile postpartum women. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1986;153:1038‐45.

Fernandez 1993

Fernandez H, Gagnepain A, Bourget P, Peray P, Frydman R, Papiernik E, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis against postpartum endometritis after vaginal delivery: a prospective randomized comparison between Amox‐CA (Augmentin) and abstention. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1993;50:169‐75.

Goldberg 2003

Goldberg J, Hyslop T, Tolosa JE, Sultana C. Racial differences in severe perineal lacerations after vaginal delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;188(4):1063‐7.

Hagadorn‐Freathy 1991

Hagadorn‐Freathy AS, Yeomen ER, Hankins GV. Validation of the 1988 ACOG forceps classification system. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1991;77:356‐60.

Hanley 2010

Hanley GE, Janssen PA, Greyson D. Regional variation in the cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2010;115(6):1201‐8.

Hehir 2013

Hehir MP, Reidy FR, Wilkinson MN, Mahony R. Increasing rates of operative vaginal delivery across two decades: accompanying outcomes and instrument preferences. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 2013;171(1):40‐3.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Janisch 1979

Janisch H, Philipp K, Riss P. The effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in vaginal obstetric procedures. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 1979;91:227‐30.

Janni 2002

Janni W, Schiessl B, Peschers U, Huber S, Strobl B, Hantschmann P, et al. The prognostic impact of a prolonged second stage of labor on maternal and fetal outcome. Scandinavian Association of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 2002;81(3):214‐21.

Johnson 2004

Johnson JH, Figueroa R, Garry D, Elimian A, Maulik D. Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum‐assisted deliveries. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;103(3):513‐8.

Kabiru 2001

Kabiru WN, Jamieson D, Graves W, Lindsay M. Trends in operative vaginal delivery rates and associated maternal complication rates in an inner‐city hospital. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;184:1112‐4.

Knight 2018

Knight M, Mottram L, Gray S, Partlett C, Juszczak E, and the ANODE collaborative group. Prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of infection following operative vaginal delivery (ANODE): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2018;19(1):395.

Kok 2000

Kok M, Pechère J. Nature and pathogenicity of micro‐organisms. In: Armstrong D, Cohen J editor(s). Infectious Diseases. London: Mosby, 2000:1‐26.

Lawani 2014

Lawani LO, Anozie OB, Ezeonu PO, Iyoke CA. Comparison of outcomes between operative vaginal deliveries and spontaneous vaginal deliveries in southeast Nigeria. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2014;125(3):206‐9.

Liabsuetrakul 2014a

Liabsuetrakul T, Lumbiganon P, Mori R, Gülmezoglu M, Souza JP, for the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. A secondary analysis of the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health for antibiotics used in vaginal deliveries. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2014;124(3):240‐3.

Liu 2005

Liu S, Heaman M, Joseph KS, Liston RM, Huang L, Sauve R, et al. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;105(4):836‐42.

Lumbiganon 2010

Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu M, Souza JP, Taneepanichkul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007‐08. Lancet 2010;375:490‐9.

McCandlish 1998

McCandlish R, Bowler U, van Asten H, Berridge G, Winter C, Sames L, et al. A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1998;105(12):1262‐72.

Mohamed‐Ahmed 2019

Mohamed‐Ahmed O, Hinshaw K, Knight M. Operative vaginal delivery and post‐partum infection. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2019;56:93‐106.

Mola 2011

Mola GD, Kuk J. Operative vaginal delivery at Port Moresby General Hospital from 1977 to 2010. Papua and New Guinea Medical Journal 2011;54(3‐4):174‐84.

Ngoc 2005

Ngoc NT, Sloan NL, Thach TS, Liem LK, Winikoff B. Incidence of postpartum infection after vaginal delivery in Viet Nam. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 2005;23:121‐30.

Nkwabong 2011

Nkwabong E, Nana PN, Mbu R, Takang W, Ekono MR, Kouam L. Indications and maternofetal outcome of instrumental deliveries at the university teaching hospital of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Tropical Doctor 2011;41:5‐7.

Panigrahy 2008

Panigrahy R, Welsh J, MacKenzie F, Owen P, for the Perinatal Effectiveness Committee in Glasgow (PEC). A complete audit cycle of management of third/fourth degree perineal tears. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2008;28:305‐9.

Pranchev 1993

Pranchev N, Istatkov M, Mekhandzhieva V. The current clinical approach in puerperal endometritis. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiia (Sofiia) 1993;32:12‐4.

Prapas 2009

Prapas N, Kalogiannidis I, Masoura S, Diamanti E, Makedos A, Drossou D, et al. Operative vaginal delivery in singleton term pregnancies: short‐term maternal and neonatal outcomes. Hippokratia 2009;13(1):41‐5.

RCOG 2011

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Green‐top Guideline No. 26: Operative vaginal delivery. RCOG: London. London: RCOG, 2011.

Rechlin 1988

Rechlin VD, Wolf M, Koeniger W. Value of the preventive use of antibiotics following vaginal obstetric operations. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie 1988;110:570‐4.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Smail 2014

Smaill FM, Grivell RM. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007482.pub3]

Stray‐Pedersen 1988

Stray‐Pedersen B, Solberg VM, Torkildsen E, Lie S, Velken M, Aaserud J, et al. Postpartum bacteriuria: a multicenter evaluation of different screening procedures and a controlled short‐course treatment trial with amoxycillin. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1988;31:163‐71.

Towers 1998

Towers CV, Carr MH, Padilla G, Asrat T. Potential consequences of widespread antepartal use of ampicillin. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;179:879‐83.

Walsh 2013

Walsh CA, Robson M, McAuliffe FM. Mode of delivery at term and adverse neonatal outcomes. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;121(1):122‐8.

Weinstein 1996

Weinstein JW, Roe M, Towns M, Sanders L, Thorpe JJ, Corey R, et al. Resistant enterococci: a prospective study of prevalence, incidence, and factors associated with colonization in a university hospital. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1996;17:36‐41.

Williams 1991

Williams MC, Knuppel RA, Wiss A, Kanarak KS. A randomized comparison of assisted vaginal delivery by obstetric forceps and polyethylene vacuum cup. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1991;78:789‐94.

Referencias de otras versiones publicadas de esta revisión

Liabsuetrakul 2003

Liabsuetrakul T, Choobun T, Peeyananjarassri K, Islam M. Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455]

Liabsuetrakul 2004

Liabsuetrakul T, Choobun T, Peeyananjarassri K, Islam QM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub2]

Liabsuetrakul 2014b

Liabsuetrakul T, Choobun T, Peeyananjarassri K, Islam QM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub3]

Liabsuetrakul 2017

Liabsuetrakul T, Choobun T, Peeyananjarassri K, Islam QM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub4]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

ANODE 2019

Methods

A multi‐centre, randomised, blinded, controlled trial carried out at 27 hospital obstetric units in the UK.

Participants

3420 women undergoing all types of operative vaginal birth at 36 weeks or greater gestation.

Women were excluded if they had any clinical indication for antibiotic administration after delivery, third‐degree or fourth‐degree perineal tears, receipt of antenatal or intrapartum antibiotics with ongoing antibiotics after delivery or a known allergy to penicillin or any of the components of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, or who had a history of anaphylaxis to another β‐lactam agent.

Setting: 27 hospital obstetric units in the UK; 13 March 2016, and 13 June 2018.

Interventions

A single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid (1 g amoxicillin and 200 mg clavulanic acid) as soon as possible and no more than 6 hours after giving birth (n = 1715) or placebo group using 20 mL of intravenous sterile 0.9% saline within the same timeframe (n = 1705).

Outcomes

Primary outcomes were a confirmed or suspected maternal infection within 6 weeks of delivery as defined as a new antibiotic prescription for a presumed perineal wound‐related infection, endometritis or uterine infection, urinary tract infection with systemic features (pyelonephritis or sepsis) or other systemic infection (clinical sepsis); confirmed systemic infection on culture; or endometritis required at least 1 of the following criteria to be met‐organisms were cultured from fluid (including amniotic fluid) or tissue from endometrium obtained during an invasive procedure or biopsy, or the woman exhibited at least 2 of fever (> 38 degrees Celsius), abdominal pain, uterine tenderness, or purulent drainage from uterus (with no other recognised cause for the latter 3 symptoms).

Secondary outcomes assessed within 6 weeks of delivery were: systemic sepsis, perineal wound infection, perineal pain, use of pain relief, hospital bed stay until discharge, need for additional perineal care, dyspareunia, ability to sit comfortably to feed the baby, maternal health‐related quality of life, breastfeeding, wound breakdown, intervention side effects, healthcare resource use and costs, or adverse events.

Notes

Dates study conducted: the trial was carried out between 13 March, 2016 and 13 June 2018.

Funding sources for the study: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Declarations of interest among primary researchers: 4 authors declared receipt of funding from NIHR outside the submitted work. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Permuted blocks of variable size was used for random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed, sequentially‐numbered, indistinguishable packs containing active drug or placebo as designated randomisation list performed by an independent trials programmer.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Women and most clinicians including research midwives and those taking consent were masked to allocation either intervention or placebo.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Midwives, nurses, or doctors collecting outcome information were masked to allocation either intervention or placebo.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Primary outcome data were complete. Secondary outcome data were incomplete with 24% loss to follow‐up; however, it was balanced between both groups.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Outcomes were reported as in the study protocol.

Other bias

Low risk

Study appeared to be free of other sources of bias.

Heitmann 1989

Methods

Selected by randomisation table to receive treatment or no treatment; not blinded or placebo‐controlled.

Participants

393 women undergoing instrumental deliveries (either vacuum or forceps deliveries).

Women were excluded if they had evidence of chorioamnionitis, or other infections, or if they were allergic to penicillin or cephalosporins.

Setting: University Hospital of Jacksonville, USA; September 1986 to February 1988.

Interventions

2 g of cefotetan intravenously after cord clamping (n = 192) or no treatment (n = 201).

Outcomes

Endomyometritis (at least 1 rise in oral temperature greater than 38.1 degrees Celsius after the first 24 hours of delivery and uterine tenderness or foul‐smelling lochia with no clinical or laboratory evidence confirming another source of the fever).

Notes

Dates study conducted: the trial was carried out between September 1986 and February 1989.

Funding sources for the study: the funding sources of an included study could not be identified.

Declarations of interest among primary researchers: not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

A randomisation table was used for random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Allocation concealment could not be interpreted.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Information not clearly mentioned.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Who measured the outcome was not mentioned.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Same number of samples at intervention given and outcome measure.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

The study protocol was not available, so there was insufficient information to permit judgement.

Other bias

Low risk

Study appeared to be free of other sources of bias.

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

De Meeus 1991

Abstract only (translated). This randomised study included 200 women including, not only instrumental delivery but also women undergoing manual removal of placenta or uterine exploration, or both, premature rupture of the membranes of more than 6 hours and a labour of more than 8 hours. No details of the interventions were given for either the treatment or the control groups. The study outcomes of postpartum fever in both comparison groups were given but they were not described for subgroups; therefore, there were no data suitable for extraction. We could not find a published article. We have tried to contact the author but without success to date.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Infected episiotomy/laceration (superficial perineal wound infection) Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.40, 0.69]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Infected episiotomy/laceration (superficial perineal wound infection).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Infected episiotomy/laceration (superficial perineal wound infection).

2 Infected episiotomy/laceration (deep perineal wound infection) Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.31, 0.69]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Infected episiotomy/laceration (deep perineal wound infection).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Infected episiotomy/laceration (deep perineal wound infection).

3 Infected episiotomy/laceration (organ or space infection) Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 2.05]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Infected episiotomy/laceration (organ or space infection).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Infected episiotomy/laceration (organ or space infection).

4 Infected episiotomy/laceration (wound breakdown) Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.43, 0.63]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 4 Infected episiotomy/laceration (wound breakdown).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 4 Infected episiotomy/laceration (wound breakdown).

5 Endometritis Show forest plot

2

3813

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [0.04, 2.64]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 5 Endometritis.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 5 Endometritis.

6 Serious infectious complications Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.22, 0.89]

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 6 Serious infectious complications.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 6 Serious infectious complications.

7 Confirmed or suspected maternal infection Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.49, 0.69]

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 7 Confirmed or suspected maternal infection.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 7 Confirmed or suspected maternal infection.

8 Maternal adverse reactions Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.00 [0.18, 22.05]

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 8 Maternal adverse reactions.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 8 Maternal adverse reactions.

9 Maternal length of stay Show forest plot

1

393

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [‐0.23, 0.41]

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 9 Maternal length of stay.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 9 Maternal length of stay.

10 Perineal pain Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.78, 0.91]

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 10 Perineal pain.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 10 Perineal pain.

11 Use of pain relief for perineal pain Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.56, 0.92]

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 11 Use of pain relief for perineal pain.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 11 Use of pain relief for perineal pain.

12 Need for additional perineal care Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.65, 0.80]

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 12 Need for additional perineal care.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 12 Need for additional perineal care.

13 Dyspareunia Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.93, 1.23]

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 13 Dyspareunia.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 13 Dyspareunia.

14 Breastfeeding at 6 weeks Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.93, 1.09]

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 14 Breastfeeding at 6 weeks.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 14 Breastfeeding at 6 weeks.

15 Perineum "ever too painful or uncomfortable" to feed baby Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.56, 0.84]

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 15 Perineum "ever too painful or uncomfortable" to feed baby.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 15 Perineum "ever too painful or uncomfortable" to feed baby.

16 Any primary care or home visits in relation to perineum Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.65, 0.81]

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 16 Any primary care or home visits in relation to perineum.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 16 Any primary care or home visits in relation to perineum.

17 Any outpatient visits in relation to perineum Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.43, 0.70]

Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 17 Any outpatient visits in relation to perineum.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 17 Any outpatient visits in relation to perineum.

18 Maternal hospital re‐admission Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.55, 1.03]

Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 18 Maternal hospital re‐admission.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 18 Maternal hospital re‐admission.

19 Maternal health‐related quality of life Show forest plot

1

2593

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.00, 0.02]

Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 19 Maternal health‐related quality of life.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 19 Maternal health‐related quality of life.

20 Costs (£) Show forest plot

1

2593

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐52.60 [‐97.26, ‐7.94]

Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 20 Costs (£).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 20 Costs (£).

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Infected episiotomy/laceration (superficial perineal wound infection).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Infected episiotomy/laceration (superficial perineal wound infection).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Infected episiotomy/laceration (deep perineal wound infection).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Infected episiotomy/laceration (deep perineal wound infection).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Infected episiotomy/laceration (organ or space infection).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Infected episiotomy/laceration (organ or space infection).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 4 Infected episiotomy/laceration (wound breakdown).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 4 Infected episiotomy/laceration (wound breakdown).

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 5 Endometritis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 5 Endometritis.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 6 Serious infectious complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 6 Serious infectious complications.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 7 Confirmed or suspected maternal infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 7 Confirmed or suspected maternal infection.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 8 Maternal adverse reactions.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 8 Maternal adverse reactions.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 9 Maternal length of stay.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 9 Maternal length of stay.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 10 Perineal pain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 10 Perineal pain.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 11 Use of pain relief for perineal pain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 11 Use of pain relief for perineal pain.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 12 Need for additional perineal care.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 12 Need for additional perineal care.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 13 Dyspareunia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 13 Dyspareunia.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 14 Breastfeeding at 6 weeks.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 14 Breastfeeding at 6 weeks.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 15 Perineum "ever too painful or uncomfortable" to feed baby.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 15 Perineum "ever too painful or uncomfortable" to feed baby.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 16 Any primary care or home visits in relation to perineum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 16 Any primary care or home visits in relation to perineum.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 17 Any outpatient visits in relation to perineum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 17 Any outpatient visits in relation to perineum.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 18 Maternal hospital re‐admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 18 Maternal hospital re‐admission.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 19 Maternal health‐related quality of life.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 19 Maternal health‐related quality of life.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 20 Costs (£).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 20 Costs (£).

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Any antibiotics compared to placebo or no treatment for operative vaginal delivery

Any antibiotics compared to placebo or no treatment for operative vaginal delivery

Patient or population: operative vaginal delivery
Setting: a hospital in USA and 27 obstetric units in UK
Intervention: any antibiotics
Comparison: placebo or no treatment

Outcomes

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

What happens

Without any antibiotics

With any antibiotics

Difference

Fever ‐ not measured

This outcome was not reported in the 2 included studies.

Infected episiotomy/laceration (superficial perineal wound infection)
№ of participants: 3420
(1 RCT)

RR 0.53
(0.40 to 0.69)

Study population

⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH

8.3%

4.4%
(3.3 to 5.7)

3.9% fewer
(5 fewer to 2.6 fewer)

Infected episiotomy/laceration (deep perineal wound infection
№ of participants: 3420
(1 RCT)

RR 0.46
(0.31 to 0.69)

Study population

⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH

4.5%

2.1%
(1.4 to 3.1)

2.4% fewer
(3.1 fewer to 1.4 fewer)

Infected episiotomy/laceration (organ or space infection)
№ of participants: 3420
(1 RCT)

RR 0.11
(0.01 to 2.05)

Study population

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1

0.2%

0.0%
(0 to 0.5)

0.2% fewer
(0.2 fewer to 0.2 more)

Infected episiotomy/laceration (wound breakdown)
№ of participants: 2593
(1 RCT)

RR 0.52
(0.43 to 0.63)

Study population

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 2

21.0%

10.9%
(9 to 13.2)

10.1% fewer
(12 fewer to 7.8 fewer)

Endometritis
№ of participants: 3813
(2 RCTs)

RR 0.32
(0.04 to 2.64)

Study population

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 3 4

1.6%

0.5%
(0.1 to 4.2)

1.1% fewer
(1.5 fewer to 2.6 more)

Urinary tract infection ‐ not measured

This outcome was not reported in the 2 included studies.

Serious infectious complications
№ of participants: 3420
(1 RCT)

RR 0.44
(0.22 to 0.89)

Study population

⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH

1.5%

0.6%
(0.3 to 1.3)

0.8% fewer
(1.1 fewer to 0.2 fewer)

Maternal adverse reactions
№ of participants: 2593
(1 RCT)

RR 2.00
(0.18 to 22.05)

Study population

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1

0.1%

0.2%
(0 to 1.7)

0.1% more
(0.1 fewer to 1.6 more)

Maternal length of stay
№ of participants: 393
(1 RCT)

The mean maternal length of stay without any antibiotics was 2.37 days.

The mean maternal length of stay with antibiotics was 0.09 days more (0.23 days less to 0.41 days more)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 5

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 We downgraded (2) levels for very serious imprecision due to wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect and small number of events.

2 We downgraded (1) level for serious limitation in study design due to loss to follow up for this outcome higher than 20%.

3 We downgraded (1) level for serious inconsistency due to unexplained substantial heterogeneity.

4 We downgraded (1) level for serious imprecision due to wide confidence interval.

5 We downgraded (1) level for serious limitations in study design due to many domains being at unclear risk of bias.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Any antibiotics compared to placebo or no treatment for operative vaginal delivery
Comparison 1. Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Infected episiotomy/laceration (superficial perineal wound infection) Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.40, 0.69]

2 Infected episiotomy/laceration (deep perineal wound infection) Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.31, 0.69]

3 Infected episiotomy/laceration (organ or space infection) Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 2.05]

4 Infected episiotomy/laceration (wound breakdown) Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.43, 0.63]

5 Endometritis Show forest plot

2

3813

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [0.04, 2.64]

6 Serious infectious complications Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.22, 0.89]

7 Confirmed or suspected maternal infection Show forest plot

1

3420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.49, 0.69]

8 Maternal adverse reactions Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.00 [0.18, 22.05]

9 Maternal length of stay Show forest plot

1

393

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [‐0.23, 0.41]

10 Perineal pain Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.78, 0.91]

11 Use of pain relief for perineal pain Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.56, 0.92]

12 Need for additional perineal care Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.65, 0.80]

13 Dyspareunia Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.93, 1.23]

14 Breastfeeding at 6 weeks Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.93, 1.09]

15 Perineum "ever too painful or uncomfortable" to feed baby Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.56, 0.84]

16 Any primary care or home visits in relation to perineum Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.65, 0.81]

17 Any outpatient visits in relation to perineum Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.43, 0.70]

18 Maternal hospital re‐admission Show forest plot

1

2593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.55, 1.03]

19 Maternal health‐related quality of life Show forest plot

1

2593

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.00, 0.02]

20 Costs (£) Show forest plot

1

2593

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐52.60 [‐97.26, ‐7.94]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment